Do you think that squeak is long overdue for a Refactoring only
wilkesjoiner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 17:33:26 UTC 2006
On 1/25/06, Cees De Groot <cdegroot at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Wilkes Joiner <wilkesjoiner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, there will be more excitement about the Traits work. It's new
> > and "sexy." However, the refactorings are more important IMO.
> Is is not an either/or. Traits is probably one of the most powerful
> refactoring tools that has been added to the image. Look at the
> original work, where (IIRC) Collections were refactored.
It's been about year since I've looked at Traits, and I really need to
look at it again before expressing my opinions.
> For the time being, until we find out what patterns make a priori
> sense with Traits, I only see traits being introduce after the fact:
> you're looking at some class structure that's getting ugly, then you
> refactor stuff into one or more trants, and continue. If we don't
> refactor existing code (especially code that is shouting, loudly,
> "refactor me with Traits!"), we'll never learn the patterns.
I don't disagree with any of the above. I'm just concerned about
pushing our learning experiences into the main image. I may be too
cautious about this.
More information about the Squeak-dev